ArcheoFOSS
Call for papers

In brief

  • The call for papers of the 20th ArcheoFOSS conference is open!
  • Will be held in dual format, in presence and online.
  • Deadline for abstract submission: 30 September 2026
  • Conference dates: 30 November - 1 December 2026

We are inviting scholars, independent researchers, institutions, freelance archaeologists and company representatives involved in Cultural Heritage to submit original research or case studies that expose the latest trends, theoretical or practical developments and challenges in the field.

Abstract Submission

Please provide for each paper proposal the following information, in English or Italian:

  • Title
  • Title of the preferred panel
  • Full name(s) of author(s)
  • Affiliation(s) of author(s)
  • Email address(es) of authors(s)
  • Abstract (max. 2000 characters spaces included)

It is recommended that the abstract gives greater prominence to FLOS (Free Libre and Open Source) concept.

Texts should be released under CC BY-ND or other equally or more permissive licenses.

After the conference, all authors will be be asked to contribute to a joint paper co-authored with the other panelists, to be published in an edited volume.

All proposals can be submitted by email at darchlab@unibo.it with the panel organizer(s) in Cc

Proposed panels

(The panels are not yet in their final order)

From Fieldwork to Dissemination through FLOSS and FLOSH

Proponents

Description

Archaeological excavation is certainly one of the areas in our discipline where the digital revolution has had a tremendous impact. Stratigraphic contexts are often documented through point clouds, and fieldwork is becoming progressively less reliant on paper. In recent years, Free/Libre and Open Source Software solutions have been adopted by both research teams and commercial archaeology companies, demonstrating their high quality and robustness for data collection and initial processing. The impact is less evident, at least at first glance, in dissemination. Often, projects adopt a digital documentation framework more because it is fast and accurate than because of the inherent added value of such a dataset. This panel welcomes contributions presenting how the digital documentation chaîne opératoire is designed to support the processing and dissemination of stratigraphic data, with a particular emphasis on solutions based on Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) and Free/Libre and Open Source Hardware (FLOSH). By focusing on a specific and often neglected step of archaeological survey, we would like to emphasize the need for discussion of methodology in order to develop good practices. The impact is less evident, at least at first glance, in dissemination. Often, projects adopt a digital documentation framework more because it is fast and accurate than because of the inherent added value of such a dataset. This panel welcomes contributions presenting how the digital documentation chaîne opératoire is designed to support the processing and dissemination of stratigraphic data, with a particular emphasis on solutions based on Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) and Free/Libre and Open Source Hardware (FLOSH). By focusing on a specific and often neglected step of archaeological survey, we would like to emphasize the need for discussion of methodology in order to develop good practices.

~

From Fragmented Data to Interoperable Knowledge: Semantic Technologies, Ontologies and Linked Open Data in Archaeology

Proponents

  • Fabrizio Ducati, fabrizio.ducati@univ-amu.fr – Aix-Marseille Univ, CNRS, CCJ, Aix-en-Provence
  • Célian Ringwald, celian.ringwald@unibo.it – Department of Languages, Literatures and Modern Cultures, Alma Mater Studiorum – Universita di Bologna
  • Hüseyin Erdoğan, huseyin.erdogan@unibo.it – Department of History and Cultures (DiSCi), Alma Mater Studiorum – Università di Bologna

Description

Over the last decades, archaeological research has witnessed both an unprecedented expansion of digital resources and the rapid maturation of semantic technologies. Driven by its interdisciplinary nature and continuous technological innovation, archaeological information is now produced through an increasingly diverse range of methods, tools and analytical approaches. Together, these developments have laid the foundations for a more structured, interoperable and FAIR-compliant research environment. However, these advances have not fully addressed some of archaeology’s most persistent challenges. Archaeological information remains fragmented, heterogeneous and shaped by diverse recording practices. It makes the integration of evidence across projects, regions and disciplinary boundaries both challenging and time-consuming, and limits the transition from individual case studies to broader syntheses. As semantic technologies continue to develop, reassessing their impact on archaeological practice is both timely and necessary. Against this background, the panel asks to what extent semantic approaches have transformed the way archaeologists construct, access and reuse knowledge. Are they fundamentally reshaping archaeological practice, or have they remained largely confined to specialist communities? Do they primarily improve data integration and interoperability, or can they also enable more transparent and reproducible forms of archaeological reasoning? The panel welcomes contributions on semantic and ontology modelling, knowledge graphs, Linked Open Data, computational methods and reproducible workflows for archaeological knowledge representation. It explores how these approaches can support the entire research process—from data recording and stewardship to interpretation and synthesis—and assesses their potential to make archaeological research more transparent, reproducible and capable of generating richer archaeological interpretations and broader historical syntheses.

~

OsteoArchaeology FLOS

Proponents

Description

The recovery, analysis and dissemination of human and non human archaeological remains can be improuved by use of software and hardware FLOS (Free Libre and Open Source)1-6 . Virtual Anthropology allows for the quantitative analysis of biological size and shape, the non-invasive studies of internal bone areas, permanent availability (24/7), less handling of the material, favouring more ethical approaches for the study, the conservation, and the usability of the material7,8. Unfortunately, the use of FLOS is not widespread among anthropologist and archaeozoologist and standard manuals do not discuss with this topic. On the contrary, the advantages of using FLOS are many:

  • Transparency and reproducibility;
  • Economic accessibility;
  • Better ethics and teamwork;
  • Long-term preservation;
  • Custom tools and sharing. The objective of the panel is to provide an overview of the use of FLOS tools during the excavation and the analysis of the archaeological bones and teeth. We are inviting papers about issues, advantages and disadvantages, state of art, and strategies for promoting the us of FLOS hardware and software in the following archaeological topics (but not only):
  • methodological research
  • excavation and recovery
  • ethics and FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) and CARE (Collective benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, Ethics)
  • dissemination and gamification
  • 3D printing
  • 3D collection
  • bones and teeth of the mummies The panel has already received commitment from three speakers willing to present their case studies, ensuring a content-rich session.

~

Beyond Visualisation: Assessing Uncertainty and Verifying Geometry in Hypothetical Virtual 3D Reconstructions

Proponents

Description

Description of the research topic Hypothetical virtual reconstruction has become one of the most widespread digital methods for investigating, interpreting and communicating lost cultural heritage. Although recent international initiatives, including the London Charter, the Seville Principles and more recent European projects, have considerably improved methodological transparency, important challenges remain regarding the scientific reliability, comparability and reusability of digital reconstructions. Among these challenges, two appear particularly urgent. The first concerns the assessment and communication of uncertainty. Every hypothetical reconstruction necessarily includes interpretative decisions based on incomplete evidence. While several approaches have proposed colour scales, paradata and documentation strategies, the research community still lacks widely accepted methodologies capable of expressing uncertainty in a transparent, reproducible and, as far as possible, objective manner. Recent developments have introduced structured uncertainty scales, mathematical indicators, and digital tools that move towards user-independent assessment and facilitate comparison among different reconstruction projects. The second challenge concerns the geometric verification and validation of 3D models. Scientific credibility depends not only on historical interpretation but also on the geometric consistency of reconstructed models. Digital reconstructions should therefore be evaluated with respect to dimensional coherence, geometric correctness, topological integrity, modelling assumptions, semantic organisation, and reproducibility of modelling workflows. Despite their importance, these aspects are still rarely discussed within archaeological and architectural reconstruction projects. This panel aims to bring together researchers from architecture, archaeology, digital heritage, geomatics, computer graphics, computer vision, BIM/HBIM, and digital humanities to discuss new methods, tools and standards that improve the scientific quality of hypothetical virtual reconstructions. Special attention will be devoted to workflows that integrate uncertainty assessment, geometric validation, interoperability, FAIR principles, semantic documentation and AI-assisted reconstruction. Topics of interest Contributions may address, but are not limited to:

  • methodologies for uncertainty assessment in hypothetical reconstructions;
  • quantitative and qualitative uncertainty metrics;
  • uncertainty visualisation and communication;
  • paradata, metadata and provenance documentation;
  • geometric verification and validation of 3D models;
  • topological consistency and semantic modelling;
  • reproducible reconstruction workflows;
  • interoperability and FAIR digital heritage;
  • HBIM and semantic enrichment of reconstructive models;
  • archaeological and architectural reconstruction methodologies;
  • AI-assisted reconstruction and explainable AI;
  • comparative evaluation of multiple reconstruction hypotheses; -open repositories and reproducible digital scholarship Expected outcome The panel aims to establish a shared research agenda centred on the idea that a hypothetical virtual reconstruction should no longer be considered merely a visually convincing model, but a scientific digital object whose reliability depends on four complementary dimensions:
    1. documented historical evidence;
    2. explicit and measurable uncertainty;
    3. verified geometric consistency;
    4. FAIR publication ensuring transparency, reproducibility and long-term reuse. These principles align closely with the methodological direction promoted by the CoVHer project and the recent work on quantitative uncertainty assessment and transparent reconstruction workflows.

~

Artificial Intelligence in Archaeological Research: State of the Art, Limitations, and Advanced Applications

Proponents

Description

Promoted by funding initiatives such as the italian PNRR and similar programs around Europe, over the last 2-3 years the Ai revolution has unfolded in the most disparate fields prompting workflow improvements, reduction of costs and spearheading huge societal transformation (Brandao 2025; Xie et al. 2025; Jana et al. 2025). Such revolution has undoubtedly started to produce effect also in archaeology, a field which has been traditionally extremely sensitive to the adoption of new technologies, with many conferences and academic journals devoted to such topics. Archeology however has also a very long history of use and development of FOSS software and hardware solutions that commenced in the early 2000s (with the activity of groups such as Arc-Team, https://www.arc-team.com/ ) and continued with long-lasting projects like pyArchinit (https://pyarchinit.org/) or Bradypus (https://bdus.cloud/). As it is well known FOSS represents primarily an ethical commitment that is inexorably intermingled with concepts of Open Science that have become increasingly relevant (Fortunato et al. 2020). In this background the new wave of AI tools are starting to be adopted by the archaeological community, with a mixture of optimism and caution (Gattiglia 2025). Projects are branching out to a variety of aspects of the archaeological research ranging from site detection to pottery drawing/processing (Cardarelli 2025; Casini et al. 2023; Gualandi et al. 2021) , although such interest has been primarily centred around the use of machine learning within specific sets of data rather than in the use of LLM for the removal of expertise bottlenecks in the management and analysis of archaeological data. The most immediately recognisable challenge to the integration of AI tools and this long lasting rich tradition of CA to archeology resides precisely in the different underpinnings of AI that normally does not function according to the principle of FOSS/GNU. In this light we call for panellist to showcase case studies integrating the use LLM and other forms of AI with FOSS and Open Science principles but also attempting to explicitly address broader questions related to the ethical challenges entailed by this (somewhat ineluctable) process: closed software and training data, dependence on proprietary infrastructures, and opaque environmental and labour costs. The panel brings together two orders of questions. The first is methodological: how reliable are AI-based methods in archaeological research, and how should their performance be evaluated? Which benchmarks, datasets, validation protocols and metrics are needed to ensure reproducibility and meaningful comparison? What is the appropriate balance between automated inference and archaeological interpretation? The second is ethical and political: under what conditions is the use of AI compatible with FOSS and Open Science principles, and what trade-offs does it entail. The two converge on a single point: without open code, data and models there can be neither replicable scientific evaluation nor critical scrutiny of the tools themselves. We welcome contributions presenting advanced case studies, innovative computational methods, comparative evaluations of AI and traditional analytical approaches, open-source software, openly available datasets and reproducible research workflows. Particular attention will be given to contributions that move beyond showcasing successful applications, addressing failure cases, uncertainty estimation, model robustness, explainability and human-in-the-loop approaches, together with an explicit reflection on the ethical implications of this process for the archaeological community. Research questions

  • How should AI methods be scientifically evaluated in archaeological research?
  • Which archaeological tasks can be reliably supported or automated using current AI technologies?
  • Which benchmarks, datasets and evaluation protocols are required to enable reproducible and comparable research?
  • How can open-source software, open datasets and transparent workflows improve the reliability and reproducibility of AI-based archaeological studies?
  • Can AI be integrated into archaeology’s FOSS ecosystem, or does it challenge its ethical foundations?
  • What opportunities and challenges are introduced by foundation models, multimodal AI and autonomous agents for the future of archaeological research?

~

Artificial Intelligence and Digital Technologies for the Communication of Archaeological Heritage

Proponents

  • Melania Marano, melania.marano2@unibo.it - Department of Cultural Heritage, Alma Mater Studiorum - Università degli Studi di Bologna

Description

Within the broader framework of archaeological heritage enhancement and public engagement, the digital transition has enabled more dynamic forms of communication, redefining the relationship between archaeological research and society. Today, Artificial Intelligence (AI) can serve as a powerful ally for archaeologists, extending its role beyond documentation to public dissemination and making complex datasets accessible and readily understandable to non-specialist audiences. Recent initiatives in museums and cultural heritage institutions have demonstrated that integrating AI into education and visitor engagement can significantly enhance inclusion and audience interest. However, the effectiveness of this mediation depends on scientific rigour: to mitigate the risk of algorithmic “hallucinations,” recent research highlights the importance of grounding AI models in controlled databases and open data validated by archaeologists. In this way, AI does not replace the expertise of the archaeologist; rather, it supports professional practice by acting as a bridge between archaeological knowledge and the wider community. How, then, can the integration of AI systems into daily archaeological practice redefine the researcher’s role in developing accurate and reliable interpretive frameworks? Can AI facilitate access to cultural heritage by transforming the scholar from a guardian of knowledge into a facilitator of shared cultural experiences, capable of communicating through accessible language and reducing cognitive barriers? The panel welcomes contributions that explore how AI can support the enhancement and public communication of archaeological heritage. Through a range of case studies – such as 3D reconstructions, archaeogaming, and the development of educational and outreach content aimed at raising awareness among younger generations – we aim to discuss how the informed and responsible use of these technologies can generate cultural products that reach varied audiences while remaining firmly grounded in sound scientific evidence.

~

Unlocking the Canopy, Locking the Data? LiDAR Archaeology and Its Quest for Open Science

Proponents

Description

Since its introduction to the discipline in the 2000s, Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) has fundamentally transformed landscape archaeology by revealing hidden micro-topographies of archaeological evidence worldwide. This tool has proven particularly effective for analysing landscapes beneath dense forest canopies, but its applications extend well beyond forested areas. However, our discipline remains heavily constrained by data availability, especially for landscape-scale approaches. LiDAR data are often acquired by regional or national agencies primarily for hydrogeological risk assessment, with datasets that are not always fully open-access. Moreover, data are released in a variety of formats, from raw point clouds to prefiltered Digital Terrain Models (DTMs), often limiting the possibility of reprocessing them to unlock their full archaeological potential. Conversely, at the site scale, the advent of drone-borne LiDAR sensors, increasingly more affordable, allows for custom and more granular data acquisition tailored to specific archaeological needs. Yet, the raw datasets from these flights are rarely published, limiting scientific reproducibility and the application of alternative processing methods. While our discipline faces these limitations, workflows and tools adhering to FLOSS principles are expanding rapidly. Numerous toolboxes now exist within open-source platforms like QGIS, CloudCompare and R to reprocess raw data (e.g., LAStools, Open Lidar Toolbox) and produce different DTM visualizations (e.g., the Relief Visualization Toolbox). In this framework, this panel aims to explore both the theoretical and practical applications of LiDAR workflows, with a particular emphasis on open-science solutions and the barriers that currently prevent their full adoption. We particularly invite case studies that bridge the gap between remote sensing applications, also combining LiDAR-derived data with other remote sensing techniques, and ground-truthing efforts. We also welcome papers on the integration of artificial intelligence for automated feature detection, the use of LiDAR in preventive archaeology and heritage protection, and its role in public archaeology, including the ethical risks of facilitating looting through open-access data.

~

Protocols for remote sensing in cultural heritage diagnostics

Proponent

Description:

The use of digital equipment in the field and in the laboratory enables the rapid collection of substantial volumes of data. However, cultural heritage professionals often lack the resources to obtain high-end equipment, with the necessary technical support for the specific use cases, or the specialised expertise to perform an accurate hardware selection. The consequence is the reliance either on low-cost equipment, designed for divergent operational contexts, or on high-end equipment that poorly performs in the specific application context. The first scenario requires iterative cycles of adaptation and testing to establish parameter modifications and standardised operational procedures to ensure effectiveness within cultural heritage sector. The proposed panel aims to gather contributions addressing challenges, solutions, and procedures for utilising 3D acquisition systems and other sensors in cultural heritage, as well as pipeline quality certification. A primary focus will be placed on FLOS and FAIR -compliant workflows. Contributions will therefore address the following research question.

~

FOSS beyond research: open source solutions in production for professional archaeology and heritage management

Proponents

Description

Free software plays a well-established role in academic archaeological research; far less documented is its use in professional and production contexts: systems developed for real clients (infrastructure operators, heritage authorities, archaeological parks, UNESCO sites, private companies), subject to requirements of reliability, traceability, interoperability and operational continuity that are rarely addressed in the literature (Ducke 2012; Wilson, Edwards 2015). The panel gathers experiences of FLOSS solutions “in production” along the entire archaeological data pipeline: sensor data acquisition and processing (multi-sensor UAV, LiDAR, multispectral imaging, thermography, geophysics), collaborative infrastructures for excavation, conservation and restoration, publication and valorisation platforms. We welcome cases where the adoption of free tools is a design decision driven by quality, reproducibility (Marwick 2017) and sustainability. These include hybrid pipelines in which open source and proprietary components coexist out of operational necessity, as well as artificial intelligence applications in professional workflows: from AI-assisted processing with expert validation to machine learning based predictive models for the assessment of archaeological potential in support of preventive archaeology (Verhagen, Whitley 2012).
Research questions: which technical, organisational and contractual conditions make FLOSS sustainable in the professional cultural heritage market? How can quality and reproducibility of workflows be guaranteed towards clients and heritage protection authorities? What role for AI and predictive models in production settings? Reference topics: “Use and reuse of open software in Archaeology”, “Ethics, sustainability and regulations”, “AI applications in Archaeology”.

~

FLOSS Geospatial Computing in Archaeology: Spatial Analysis, Modelling and Reproducible Workflows

Proponents

Description

The spatial dimension of archaeology extends beyond the mere localisation of material evidence, constituting instead a complex system of relationships that intertwines temporal processes, mobility, landscape transformation, and even the absence of archaeological traces. From this perspective, space becomes a fundamental interpretative framework for understanding the dynamics of past societies, making the adoption of methodologies capable of analysing, integrating and representing heterogeneous datasets across multiple scales essential. In recent years, open-source geospatial technologies have assumed an increasingly central role in archaeological research, fostering the development of reproducible workflows, interoperability between tools and datasets, and the sharing of methodological practices within the scientific community. In this context, Free Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) represents not merely a technological choice, but a fundamental component in ensuring methodological transparency, the replicability of analytical procedures, and the long-term sustainability of research. Spatial representations have evolved from being simple descriptive tools into genuine instruments for knowledge production: through methodological choices, analytical models and modes of visualisation, they contribute to the formulation of new interpretative hypotheses and to a deeper understanding of the relationships between data, landscape and historical-archaeological processes. At the same time, advances in spatial and geostatistical analysis, the increasing availability of open-access datasets, and the publication of reproducible workflows now make it possible to analyse large volumes of information, facilitating the integration of heterogeneous sources and the development of increasingly robust and transparent interpretative models. This panel aims to bring together contributions focusing on the development and application of computational methodologies for the analysis of archaeological and paleoenvironmental data, with particular emphasis on the use of open-source GIS and WebGIS platforms, software for statistical and geospatial analysis, and, more broadly, FLOSS ecosystems for the management, integration, modelling and interpretation of spatial data. The panel explores the contribution of open-source geospatial methodologies to advancing spatial and geostatistical analysis in archaeology, fostering discussion on the opportunities and methodological challenges of integrating, modelling and interpreting complex spatial datasets. It welcomes contributions presenting case studies, methodological developments, software tools and interdisciplinary workflows that demonstrate the value of computational approaches at both intra-site and inter-site scales. The panel also encourages critical reflection on the potential and limitations of quantitative and computational spatial analysis, with particular attention to the acquisition, management and integration of heterogeneous datasets characterised by varying scales, resolutions and levels of reliability, and to the methodological implications arising from these challenges.

~

FLOSS-Based Modelling in Landscape Archaeology: Current Methods and Theoretical Perspectives

Proponents

  • Francesca Cornella, F.Cornella2@newcastle.ac.uk - School of History, Classics and Archaeology, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK
  • Filippo Brandolini, filippo.brandolini@unimi.it - Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra “Ardito Desio”, Università degli studi di Milano, Milan, 20133, IT; Center for Sustainability Science and Strategy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139
  • Francesco Carrer, Francesco.Carrer@newcastle.ac.uk - School of History, Classics and Archaeology, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK
  • Enrico Croce, enri.croce@gmail.com - Indipendent Researcher

Description

GIS-based and computational modelling are now firmly established within landscape archaeology, and Free/Libre and Open-Source Software is increasingly relevant for ensuring methodological consistency and transferability. Current work has moved beyond descriptive mapping towards reproducible approaches, including predictive, spatial, landscape, and mobility modelling. Recent research has also shown how these methods can contribute to the study of long-term socio-ecological systems through ecological modelling, geospatial statistics, and broader socio-environmental perspectives. Overall, the field is moving towards a broader interdisciplinary perspective, in which FLOSS-based workflows strengthen transparency, reproducibility, and cross-case comparability, while also helping connect analytical procedures with archaeological interpretations. However, the growing diversity of approaches, and their theoretical implications, still require further discussion. This session welcomes contributions that explore how FLOSS-based landscape modelling can advance the interpretation of archaeological landscapes and socio-ecological systems, while also shedding light on the relationship between past and present landscapes and its significance for sustainability. We particularly welcome papers addressing the following questions:

  • How can FLOSS-based modelling help reconstruct and understand long-term socio-ecological systems?
  • How can modelling be integrated into archaeological theory to support broader understandings of socio-ecological systems, rather than treating human and environmental processes as separate domains?
  • What are the new developments in the use of FLOSS-based modelling for landscape archaeology?

~

Beyond the Site: R as an Open Tool for Critical Statistical and Spatial Analysis in Archaeology

Proponent

Description:

Quantitative methods have become a central part of archaeological practice, and R has emerged as the open-source environment of choice for much of this work. From the statistical study of material culture and its distributions to spatial pattern analysis, landscape modelling, and the study of past mobility and connectivity, the range of problems that archaeologists are now addressing with R continues to grow. This panel invites contributions that use R to tackle concrete archaeological questions and that engage thoughtfully with what their results can and cannot demonstrate. Quantitative and statistical analysis is not just about producing results: it is about understanding the conditions under which those results hold, being explicit about the assumptions behind a method, and knowing where the data run out. We are particularly interested in contributions where the analytical workflow itself becomes part of the argument, whether that means confronting the limits of a legacy dataset, testing the sensitivity of a model, or making uncertainty a visible and manageable part of the interpretation. Open, reproducible workflows are central to this discussion. When code and data are shared, the reasoning behind an analysis becomes visible and the community can engage with it critically and build on it. Contributions may come from any period, region, or analytical tradition. What brings them together is a commitment to open, honest analysis and a willingness to discuss not just what the results show, but the conditions under which they can be trusted.

~